An Evaluation of Self-Measured Blood Pressure in a Study With a Calcium-Channel Antagonist Versus a -Blocker

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
In recent years self-measurement of blood pressure at home has gained increasing importance but there have been only a few studies comparing casual, ambulatory, and self-measured blood pressure determinations during a single clinical trial. We therefore compared treatment-induced blood pressure-reductions in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study design with a single morning dose of either 10 mg bisoprolol (n = 26) or 20 mg nitrendi-pine (n = 27) with casual blood pressure readings in the morning before the dose, ambulatory 24-h monitoring, and self-recorded measurements in the morning before the dose and in the evening. Mean reductions for systolic and diastolic blood pressure after 4 weeks of therapy were significantly greater for bisoprolol than for nitrendipine. The treatment-induced blood pressure reductions were most pronounced as assessed by casual readings but showed good agreement between casual, ambulatory, and self-measured blood pressure for group comparisons. In some patients, however, marked individual differences between the three methods were observed. Correlation coefficients between ambulatory and self-measured blood pressure were 0.4 for systolic blood pressure (P < .05) and 0.6 for diastolic blood pressure (P < .0005). Under the conditions of this parallel study design and the usual statistical risks, a difference of 5 mm Hg in diastolic blood pressure can be detected in 118 patients at the clinic, in 70 patients if ambulatory blood pressure is used, or in 56 patients if self-measured blood pressure is used. In conclusion, bisoprolol was more effective over 24 h than nitrendipine at the doses studied. Furthermore, self-measured blood pressure was suitable for monitoring 24-h efficacy of the two antihypertensive drugs under investigation. Finally, self-measured blood pressure can substantially improve the sensitivity of hypertension trials in comparison to casual readings and therefore reduce the number of patients included. Am J Hypertens 1992;5:154-160

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: